DOCSLIB.ORG

The Cases of the Donetsk and Luhansk “People's Republics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Cases of the Donetsk and Luhansk “People's Republics ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 INTERNAL LEGITIMACY AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNITION: THE CASES OF THE DONETSK AND LUHANSK “PEOPLE’S REPUBLICS” Nataliia Kasianenko California State University, Fresno ORCid: 0000-0003-4435-9819 Abstract. This article examines the strategies used by the self-proclaimed governments of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR) and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR) in achieving internal legitimacy. It specifically highlights the attempts of the two regimes to use direct democracy and the provision of public goods in eastern Ukraine. The article advances the argument in support of the idea that it is possible to attain legitimacy in the absence of external recognition and sovereignty. The people in the self-proclaimed “people’s republics” in the Donbas express the sense of abandonment by the government in Kyiv as they are largely isolated from the rest of Ukraine. The author explores the ability of the two de facto states to govern when it comes to the provision of basic public goods and services for the residents of the DPR and the LPR. Finally, the author discusses the prospects for reintegrating the Donbas by the Ukrainian government. Key words: legitimacy; governance; Donbas; referendum; Ukraine № 1(12), 2019 116 ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 Introduction In the spring of 2014, amid political instability that engulfed Ukraine, pro-Russian rebel leaders in the east of Ukraine (the Donbas) took control of the local government buildings. They opposed the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine and called for the independence of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR) and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR).1 Surveys out of eastern Ukraine suggest that 71% of residents in Donetsk and 61% of residents in Luhansk believed the Euromaidan anti-government protests in 2014 were orchestrated by the West (KIIS 2014). The regime change initiated after the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych created a power vacuum in the Donbas. New regional leaders rose up on the wave of mass opposition to the new political leadership in Kyiv (KIIS 2014). In May 2014, as the separatists clashed with the Ukrainian military, the rebel leadership conducted referendums on the status of the DPR and LPR respectively. While the Ukrainian government and the larger international community condemned these referendums as undemocratic and illegal, their results showed overwhelming public support for independence and spearheaded the efforts of the rebel leadership to consolidate the two polities politically and economically (Zadorozhny & Korotkiy 2015). Four years later, as the war in the Donbas continues, the death toll now exceeds 13,000 people (UN 2019). The international peace agreements Minsk I (2014) and Minsk II (2015) helped contain the conflict but did not bring the war between the Ukrainian military and the separatists to an end. As the war persists, the region of the Donbas remains divided into the territory of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts controlled by the Ukrainian government and the territories controlled by the self-proclaimed governments of the DPR and the LPR. These unrecognized states are increasingly isolated from the rest of Ukraine. The Ukrainian government engaged in the economic blockade of the DPR and LPR in 2017, while the Russian government has been actively involved in supporting them from the start. The leadership of the DPR/LPR is slowly aligning its political and economic institutions with those of the Russian Federation with the ultimate goal of full integration with Russia in the future. The Russian government is cautious about recognizing the sovereignty of the two polities and only assists them with governance and security with no promises extended regarding future integration (Sasse & Lackner 2018). Although the validity of the 2014 referendums has been questioned by both Ukraine and the West, public opinion surveys and interviews out of the Donbas show that the population of the DPR/LPR feels abandoned by the Ukrainian government (Giuliano 2018) and largely supports the idea of independence from Ukraine (Kudelia 2014). The residents of the Donbas trust the leadership of the two de facto states and remain optimistic about the future integration with Russia (Kudelia 2014). As the DPR and the LPR remain dependent on Russia for security and economic support, the question of legitimacy remains important. This paper focuses on the efforts of the two regimes in obtaining legitimacy in the absence of external recognition through the use of 1 In this paper, I use several references for the occupied regions of the Donbas, including ‘polities’, ‘de facto states’, ‘unrecognized states’, and ‘people’s republics’. № 1(12), 2019 117 ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 referendums and the provision of basic public goods and services for DPR/LPR residents. I specifically explore the areas of security, economic governance, and social welfare in the two de facto states. Degrees of Legitimacy Academic literature traditionally treats unrecognized states and territories as entities that lack both sovereignty and legitimacy. Yet, in recent years, scholars started to highlight the fact that legitimacy defined as popular consent to the authority of the regime (Weber 1978) is not a binary concept (Caspersen 2012). It is important to distinguish between different degrees of legitimacy and statehood (Clapham 1998; Caspersen 2012). Specifically, Caspersen (2015) examines external and internal legitimacy arguing that non-recognized states may still have internal legitimacy if the population accepts the regime and the regime successfully delivers key public goods. Scholars have long tied legitimacy to the provision of security and basic welfare (Lipset 1960; Berg 2012). Internal legitimacy can be obtained through effective governance and can be facilitated by the external sources of funding and support. At the same time, even incomplete displays of democratic governance in the form of organized elections and referendums may serve to further legitimize the ruling regime in the eyes of the local population. Additionally, if an unrecognized state is dealing with an ongoing conflict or international isolation, political elites may use this situation to develop a narrative of victimhood, which can help unite the majority of the public behind the elites (Caspersen 2015). Scholars also noted the importance of external support for unrecognized states showing that there are hardly any state entities that are completely isolated from the international system (Berg & Toomla 2009; Ker-Lindsay 2012). Thus, relying on some form of outside assistance may not necessarily translate into statehood, yet it helps achieve internal legitimacy. Attaining this degree of legitimacy is both difficult and important for the survival of unrecognized states. Using two cases of unrecognized states in the Donbas, I will highlight the efforts of the self-proclaimed leaders of the DPR and the LPR to obtain internal legitimacy through the use of direct democracy mechanisms (referendums) and governance with the assistance of the external patron (Russia). The analysis of legitimacy is methodologically challenging in unrecognized states engaged in conflict. Data collection in the DPR and the LPR is also complicated by the fact that media channels in the two polities are state- controlled, and the two regimes are not releasing official statistics related to their budgets and finances. Yet, the main purpose of this article is to describe key strategies of achieving internal legitimacy in these unrecognized states. The Use of Referendums The calls for a referendum on the status of the Donbas were first made in 2004 during the Orange revolution that discredited the President-elect Viktor Yanukovych, a Donbas local. The residents of the Donetsk region disagreed with the victory of the pro-Western № 1(12), 2019 118 ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 candidate Viktor Yushchenko as Ukraine’s president and made calls for the autonomy of the Donbas. The idea of the autonomy was reinforced by the notion that “the Donbas feeds Ukraine” (Haran & Yakovlev 2017). Subsequent (and this time successful) calls for a new referendum came in 2014, following the Euromaidan revolution that ousted Yanukovych from power. After the Euromaidan and the annexation of Crimea, the wave of patriotism swept all over Ukraine with the exception of the Donbas. In fact, a large number of survey respondents (around 25%) in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2014 have clearly expressed the desire to separate from Ukraine and join Russia (Vedernikova, Mostova & Rakhmanin 2014). The referendums on the independent status of Donetsk and Luhansk took place in May of 2014. The rebel leaders have set up hundreds of polling stations with assistance from the Russian government (Vandysheva 2018). The question posed at the referendums directly addressed the political status of the two polities. It was worded in an ambivalent way, “Do you support the Act of state “samostoyatel’nost” of the Donetsk (Luhansk) People’s Republic?” The term “samostoyatel’nost” may be interpreted as either complete or partial independence (Dubova & Bigg 2014). Moreover, many people in the Donbas believed that “samostoyatel’nost” meant integration into the Russian state. The responses involved two options of either “yes” or “no” (Matveeva 2016). In both de facto states, the organizers claimed that the results of the referendum would be accepted regardless of the voter turnout since some voters might be unwilling to participate in the referendum due to security concerns (RIA News 2014a). The declared turnout for both referendums was nonetheless impressive. In the Donetsk region with over 3 million eligible voters, the referendum turnout was almost 75%. The official results showed that nearly 90% of voters supported the independent status of “the Donetsk People’s Republic” (DNR 2016).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minsk II a Fragile Ceasefire
    Briefing 16 July 2015 Ukraine: Follow-up of Minsk II A fragile ceasefire SUMMARY Four months after leaders from France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia reached a 13-point 'Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements' ('Minsk II') on 12 February 2015, the ceasefire is crumbling. The pressure on Kyiv to contribute to a de-escalation and comply with Minsk II continues to grow. While Moscow still denies accusations that there are Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly admitted in March 2015 to having invaded Crimea. There is mounting evidence that Moscow continues to play an active military role in eastern Ukraine. The multidimensional conflict is eroding the country's stability on all fronts. While the situation on both the military and the economic front is acute, the country is under pressure to conduct wide-reaching reforms to meet its international obligations. In addition, Russia is challenging Ukraine's identity as a sovereign nation state with a wide range of disinformation tools. Against this backdrop, the international community and the EU are under increasing pressure to react. In the following pages, the current status of the Minsk II agreement is assessed and other recent key developments in Ukraine and beyond examined. This briefing brings up to date that of 16 March 2015, 'Ukraine after Minsk II: the next level – Hybrid responses to hybrid threats?'. In this briefing: • Minsk II – still standing on the ground? • Security-related implications of the crisis • Russian disinformation
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine Resolution on Mariupol.Pdf (23.08
    DAV15155 S.L.C. 114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. RES. ll Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the January 24, 2015, attacks carried out by Russian-backed rebels on the civilian population in Mariupol, Ukraine, and the provision of lethal and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllll RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the January 24, 2015, attacks carried out by Russian-backed rebels on the civilian population in Mariupol, Ukraine, and the provision of lethal and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. Whereas Russian-backed rebels continue to expand their cam- paign in Ukraine, which has already claimed more than 5,000 lives and generated an estimated 1,500,000 refu- gees and internally displaced persons; Whereas, on January 23, 2015, Russian rebels pulled out of peace talks with Western leaders; DAV15155 S.L.C. 2 Whereas, on January 24, 2015, the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol received rocket fire from territory in the Donetsk region controlled by rebels; Whereas, on January 24, 2015, Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the Russian-backed rebel Donetsk People’s Re- public, publicly announced that his troops had launched an offensive against Mariupol; Whereas Mariupol is strategically located on the Sea of Azov and is a sea link between Russian-occupied Crimea and Russia, and could be used to form part of a land bridge between Crimea and
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens and the State in the Government-Controlled Territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions Problems, Challenges and Visions of the Future
    Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future Funded by: This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union through International Alert. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of International Alert and UCIPR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Layout: Nick Wilmot Creative Front cover image: A mother and daughter living in temporary accommodation for those displaced by the violence in Donetsk, 2014. © Andrew McConnell/Panos © International Alert/Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research 2017 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future October 2017 2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 6 3. Findings 7 4. Statements from interviewees 22 5. Conclusions and recommendations 30 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions 3 1. INTRODUCTION The demarcation line (the line of contact)1 and the ‘grey zone’ between the government-controlled2 and uncontrolled territories3 of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions separates the parties to the conflict in the east of Ukraine. The areas controlled by the Ukrainian authorities and bordering the ‘grey zone’ are very politically sensitive, highly militarised, and fall under a special governance regime that is different from the rest of the country. In the absence of a comprehensive political settlement and amid uncertain prospects, it is unclear how long this situation will remain. It is highly likely that over the next few years, Ukrainians in areas adjacent to the contact line will live under very particular and unusual governance structures, and in varying degrees of danger.
    [Show full text]
  • Alarmed by Civilian Deaths from Rocket Attacks in Ukraine, Under-Secretary-General, in Security Council Briefing, Calls for Rebels to Reinstate Ceasefire Agreement
    26 January 2015 SC/11753 Alarmed by Civilian Deaths from Rocket Attacks in Ukraine, Under-Secretary-General, in Security Council Briefing, Calls for Rebels to Reinstate Ceasefire Agreement 7368th Meeting (PM) Security Council Meetings Coverage Expressing alarm over the high civilian death toll in Ukraine of recent days, along with the shelling of the city of Mariupol, the top United Nations political affairs official called on the rebels to “recommit to the ceasefire and back down from their offensive” in an emergency Security Council meeting this afternoon. “In just five days since we last met on 21 January, close to 50 civilians have been killed and nearly 150 have been seriously injured,” Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said at a meeting requested by Ukraine, less than a week after a full Council briefing on the situation (see Press Release SC/11746). He reiterated that the Minsk ceasefire must be immediately restored, “with the onus particularly on the rebels”. At the same time, he expressed hope that the negotiating mechanism known as the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of the European Union, the United States, Ukraine and the Russian Federation, could soon renew efforts to implement the broader Minsk accords. Noting that the rebel announcement of withdrawal from the ceasefire on 23 January was accompanied by threats to seize further territory and a boycott of future “consultations” with negotiating mechanisms, he said that it was a violation of their commitments under the Minsk accords signed in September, under which the nominal truce had been declared. He called on them to abide by their commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kremlin's Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle
    THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULARY ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE | FRANKLIN HOLCOMB | AUGUST 2017 Franklin Holcomb September 2017 RUSSIA AND UKRAINE SECURITY REPORT 3 THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULAR ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE WWW.UNDERSTANDINGWAR.ORG 1 Cover: A Pro-Russian separatist sits at his position at Savur-Mohyla, a hill east of the city of Donetsk, August 28, 2014. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing or from the publisher. ©2017 by the Institute for the Study of War. Published in 2017 in the United States of America by the Instittue for the Study of War. 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 | Washington, DC 20036 understandingwar.org 2 Franklin Holcomb The Kremlin’s Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle ABOUT THE AUTHOR Franklin Holcomb is a Russia and Ukraine Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War where he focuses on the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian politics, and Russian foreign policy in Eastern Europe. His current research focuses on studying the development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatist formations operating in Eastern Ukraine, as well as analyzing Russian political and military activity in Moldova, the Baltic, and the Balkans. Mr. Holcomb is the author of “The Order of Battle of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: A Key Component in European Security,” “Moldova Update: Kremlin Will Likely Seek to Realign Chisinau”, “Ukraine Update: Russia’s Aggressive Subversion of Ukraine,” as well as ISW’s other monthly updates on the political and military situation in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Myths How Crisis Ukraine Explains
    Dangerous Myths How the Crisis in Ukraine Explains Future Great Power Conflict Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute August 18, 2020 Dangerous Myths: How the Crisis in Ukraine Explains Future Great Power Conflict Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I — Russian Intervention in Ukraine: A Troubled History ............................................. 12 Chapter II — Russian Military Modernization and Strategy ........................................................... 21 Chapter III — Hybrid Warfare Revisited .............................................................................................. 26 Chapter IV — A Breakdown of Russian Hybrid Warfare ................................................................. 31 Proxy Warfare ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Information Warfare .......................................................................................................................... 38 Maritime/Littoral
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine – Russia: Relationships 2014 – Present
    Ukraine – Russia: Relationships 2014 – present Simulation of Negotiations: Ukraine-Russia-European Union Relations Dr. Vitalijs Butenko Dr. Sibylle Zürcher NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 1 1. Introduction NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 2 Ukraine Situation as of 2013: - Form of government: Semi-presidential republic - Administrative units: - 24 regions (“oblast”) - 2 cities of republican subordination (Kiev and Sevastopol) - Autonomous Republic of Crimea - Population*: - 48.4 m (2001 census) - 42.5 m (2016 estimate) - GDP (current prices)*: - $179.5 b (2013) - $87.2 b (2016 estimate) - Security: - 250’000 army personnel0 - Following Budapest agreement in 1994 the nuclear arsenal is removed to Russia in exchange for assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and admission to Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 3 * Note from IMF: 2013 data excludes Crimea and Sevastopol for comparison purposes with 2014 data. 2. Background on the crisis in Ukraine 5. Sept. 2014: Minsk protocol, Convoy cease fire Nov 2013 – Sept 2014 Odessa Dec 2014-Feb Conflict intensity 2015: Debaltseve “Pocket” War Mar. 2014: MH17 Civil war erupts in Luhansk and Donetsk regions 12. Sept. 2014: Ratification of the Mar. 2014: UKR-EU association US and EU agreement Crisis sanctions 21 Feb. 2014: Mar. 2014: Crisis settlement deal Incorporation of Crimea by Russia 22-23 Feb. 2014: Yanukovitch leaves Ukraine; Maidan leaders take over Open the government conflict 26. Sept. 2014 Another gas- Nov. 2013: UKR: repays $3.1 bn price crisis Euromaidan debt in steps UKR-RUS, EU begins RUS: Resumes as mediator supply at price $385 per 1,000 m2 Unstable peace StableNov.
    [Show full text]
  • To View the Report
    Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l Avenue d’Auderghem 61/16, 1040 Brussels Phone/Fax: 32 2 3456145 Email: [email protected] – Website : http://www.hrwf.eu The Donetsk People’s Republic and some EU blacklisted leaders Who is who ? By Willy Fautré April 2015 The self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) were formed on 11 May 2014 on the territory of Donbass (Donetsk and Luhansk regions in Ukraine’s southeastern industrial area) after referendums that were not recognized by the Ukrainian government and the international community. In response, Kiev started a military operation. The first Minsk Peace Agreement signed on 5 September provided that the warring parties would agree . to pull heavy weaponry 15 km by each side from the line of contact, creating a 30 km security zone . to ban offensive operations . to ban flights by combat aircraft over the security zone . to set up an OSCE monitoring mission . to withdraw all foreign mercenaries from the conflict zone but this did not stop the war and further territorial expansion of the separatists. In September 2014, the self-proclaimed republics unilaterally adopted laws on elections of the republics’ heads and deputies of people’s councils despite the opposition of the central government in Kyiv. On the whole, 2.2 million people live in the Luhansk Region, and 4.3 million people reside in the Donetsk Region. The share of Russians in the population reaches 39-40% Both territories are centers of the coal, metallurgical and mechanical engineering industries. Some EU-sanctioned separatist leaders and figures The first DPR political leader was Alexander Borodai, a Russian citizen, from Moscow.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Russia-Ukraine Summary%2C Final
    1 Crimea-Donbass Background: A crisis occurred between Russia and Ukraine from 22 February 2014 to 18 February 2015. The crisis had important and broad implications for Russian relations with Ukraine, other former Soviet states in the region, and members of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including the United States. PRE-CRISIS: On 21 November 2013, Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych sparked a wave of anti- government unrest – commonly known as “Euromaidan” – when he rejected a trade and political association agreement with the EU in favor of forging closer ties to Russia. Demonstrations in favor of closer European integration began in Kiev that evening and were initially peaceful, but they eventually spread to other parts of Ukraine and escalated into a series of increasingly violent clashes between protesters and police, as well as demands for the resignation of Yanukovych. Violence between protestors and police reached its peak in mid-February 2014, when both sides were firing at each other and the number of deaths increased significantly. Alarmed by the escalating use of repression by the Ukrainian government, the United States imposed visa bans on twenty senior Ukrainian governmental officials on 19 February. The EU followed suit the next day with its own package of sanctions that included travel bans and asset freezes targeted at Ukrainian officials as well as a ban on the export of equipment that could be used for repression by the Ukrainian government. Over the next several days, a number of MPs from the ruling party in Ukraine (the Party of Regions), the armed forces, and police resigned and/or defected to the opposition or fled to safe areas.
    [Show full text]
  • “People's Republics” of Eastern Ukraine
    Nikolaus von Twickel Current events in the “People’s Republics” of eastern Ukraine Interim Report 2018 Civic monitoring of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Region Imprint DRA e.V. Badstraße 44 D-13357 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 446 680 12 Fax. +49 (0)30 446 680 10 [email protected] www.austausch.org www.civicmonitoring.org Project: Human Rights Monitoring in Eastern Ukraine Implemented with support from the Federal Foreign Office of Germany Author of the report: Nikolaus von Twickel Editor: Tim Bohse Photos: Title page: “Industrial city Donetsk” (2013) by Vladimir Yaitskiy, used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic licence, desaturated from original. All opinions included in this report do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany. Copyright © DRA 2018 Reproduction of the content is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. Content Politics 4 Security 6 Economy 7 Human rights and civil society 8 Prospects 9 Short chronology 10 Endnotes 11 Preface Overall, the fundamentals governing the conflict remain unchanged. There are strong indications that Moscow’s goal is to maintain hotbeds of instability and deeply anti- 2018 saw major political tensions in separatist-controlled western Trojan Horses in Ukraine’s flank. Under these Donetsk, culminating in the assassination of local leader circumstances, the best Ukraine can do is project good Alexander Zakharchenko on August 31. Power in the governance and prosperity into the areas it does not Donetsk “People’s Republic” (“DNR”) subsequently shifted control and hope that the growing economic burden and/ to Denis Pushilin, the longtime Minsk negotiator, who has or ungovernability will make Russia rethink its support for a reputation of being highly manageable and of having the “People’s Republics”.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Provisional Asdf Seventieth Year 7368Th Meeting Monday, 26 January 2015, 1 P.M
    United Nations S/PV.7368 Security Council Provisional asdf Seventieth year 7368th meeting Monday, 26 January 2015, 1 p.m. New York President: Mr. Barros Melet . ................................ (Chile) Members: Angola .. Mr. Lucas Chad .......................................... Mr. Gombo China . ......................................... Mr. Liu Jieyi France ......................................... Mr. Delattre Jordan ......................................... Mr. Hmoud Lithuania . ...................................... Ms. Murmokaitė Malaysia ....................................... Mr. Haniff New Zealand .................................... Mr. McLay Nigeria . ........................................ Mr. Laro Russian Federation ............................... Mr. Churkin Spain .......................................... Mr. Oyarzun Marchesi United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... Sir Mark Lyall Grant United States of America . .......................... Ms. Power Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) ................... Mr. Ramírez Carreño Agenda Letter dated 28 February 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2014/136) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Gray Zone Mediation in the Ukraine Crisis: Comparing Crimea and Donbas David Carment, Milana Nikolko, and Dani Belo
    10. Gray zone mediation in the Ukraine crisis: comparing Crimea and Donbas David Carment, Milana Nikolko, and Dani Belo This chapter examines mediation efforts in the Crimea and Donbas (Eastern Ukraine) conflicts that occurred following the onset of the Ukraine crisis on February 22, 2014. The Ukraine crisis captures the essence of gray zone conflicts in which parties and strategies are not easily identified and mediation efforts prove difficult, given the complexity and number of competing stakeholders.1 The Ukraine crisis exhibits vertical and horizontal escalation leading to a rapid weakening of state integrity and regime collapse, through processes of contagion and diffusion (Carment, James, and Taydas 2006). We see this most clearly at crisis onset with the spread of protests and demonstrations from Kyiv to L’viv and Odesa, and from there to Crimea, eventually culminating in outright rebellion in Donbas. Irredentist and separatist elements are also clearly identified (Carment, James, and Taydas 2006). Geographic contiguity and ethnic affinities are present (Carment and James 1995). In the case of Crimea, we observe first a declaration of independence, and then its integration into Russia, thus moving from separation to irredentist conflict. The outcome was both decisive and unambiguous.2 Donbas, in contrast, is a separatist conflict. Russia has made no formal declaration to annex the territory. Though Putin has declared his intent of protecting the Russian-speaking peoples of the region, he has also stated no interest in reclaiming Eastern Ukraine.3 Not surprisingly it is the latter conflict in Eastern Ukraine which exhibits ongoing gray zone techniques since Russia’s ultimate goal is undeclared.4 1 An international crisis as defined by the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project is a disruption in pro- cess and a challenge to the structure of the international system.
    [Show full text]